Access to Public Information, Defamation / Reputation
Aécio Neves da Cunha v. Twitter Brasil
Closed Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Court of Liquidation and Judgment held that the Paraguayan Constitution provides that people have the right to petition governmental authorities for information as well as the right to be provided with that information, unless the authority timely responds with an exception specifically provided for by the American Convention on Human Rights and related regional jurisprudence.
This analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.
Under the sponsorship of Lawyers for the Defense of the People, Elizabeth Flores Negri brought an action against the Rectorship of the National University of Asunción, a public university, seeking a copy of certain Scholarship Regulations approved by Resolution no. 71’00’2005 – act no. 5 of 9 March 2005. The Rectorship denied the request on technical grounds, alleging that the document was unsigned and not submitted in the proper format, but eventually provided the information (pg. 291). Negri and the Lawyers challenged the initial refusal by alleging that it violated their right to petition authorities and gain access to public sources of information.
The Court noted that the subsequent publishing of the information did not moot Negri’s case. As to the merits, the Court concluded (1) that Article 40 of the Constitution provides every person with the right to petition authorities for information, and that those authorities must respond within a specific time frame according to the methods prescribed by the government; and (2) that Article 28 of the Constitution establishes the right of the people to receive truthful, responsible and unbiased information, and also that public information sources are free for all persons. The Court relied in part on Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights, which establishes freedom of thought and expression, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 2006 decision in Claude Reyes v. Chile, which states that Article 13 provides for a right to receive information, and the affirmative obligation of the state to provide it to a requester or to respond by providing a suitable justification for non-disclosure.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.